Talk:Whirlpool (website)

Copyedit

This article really need a bit of a fix up. See the fix ups I did as examples. 220.233.48.200 11:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I Have reworked some sentences to reflect the true nature of Whirlpool. While not significant, it does add some clarification. Orbitalwow 00:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think this article is written to a suitable standard, and the copyedit tag should come off. If someone agrees, please remove it. Kcordina 10:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree - tag removed! -- Chuq 12:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Efficient?

Questionable appraisal considering the frequency of "Fourm offline" message owning to servers being overloaded. Surely this is too simple an assesmnet. Perhaps this is a consequence of the minimal hardware resources available or the programming platform, but certainly forums carrying a much large volume of traffic (Slashdot, Sitepoint) do not suffer from the same problems. --Wm 01:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This situation has now significantly improved with the site's sole sponsor, WebCentral, having upgraded the hardware running the site's software. Whirlpool has no budget in order to influence site requirements through WebCentral, and so are completely dependent on WebCentral's good nature in terms of upgrades and problem resolution. The comparisons to Slashdot and Sitepoint are most complimentary; nice to think it can stand with them in terms of content.  :)

Yes. The performance has improved in the last weeks. I just wonder exactly what the claims about effeciency in the article mean. Are there any published data, opinions or other evidence to support this claim? Seems more like a bit of insider back-patting to me :) I wonder that if it had been written for another platform (e.g. PHP on Linux) it would be much easier to get more bang for the buck, but honestly I claim no great expertise in assessing such matters. Of course, I visit the forums many times a day and find it an invaluable resource, and v. significant when I chose my broadband supplier. The community is just the right size of population and local orientation to be approachable, busy but not so busy as to overwhelm. --Wm 13:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that the comment on the forums' efficiency is speculation based on the fact that the site is "hand-coded", and "hand-coded" programming is generally assumed to operate faster. Remove? splintax ^(talk) 07:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice site

Cool to see Whirlpool up on Wikipedia :) Good Job!! --Intervene

Stupid Comparisons

Comparing Whirlpool to Slashdot and Sitepoint not only misses the point but misses it by a mile. Both Slashdot and Sitepoint belong to corporations who use the sites are revenue generators, both carry advertising and in Sitepoints case the site exists only to push their products and forums are an adjunct of that. These are not independant sites in any way or form (people clinging to the illusion of Slashdot independance need to grasp reality) and are not remotely like WP - the amount of money which has been spent on Slashdot's back end is truly astounding - it should be fast.

WP seldom has less than 1000 users on it most of the day, it has over 78'000 members, it is completely self supporting, Simon Wright does not seek money for memberships, does not accept advertising and funds the site pretty much from his own pocket aside from some money given voluntarily as donations - there is no comparison between the websites what so ever.

Not useful to refer to a question as "stupid". The bombastic and defensive tone adopted here doesn't add any weight to the points you point forward, which are in themselves fine. It seems that you may be an "insider" at Whirlpool as you are quoting specific figures. While your points are worth considering, I don't not accept that comparison is "stupid" and I especially don't accept that questions like this shouldn't be raised, and I don't think having been raised that pejoritive terms such as "stupid" need to be used to rebut them. After all the doubts weren't even entered into the article text, instead I took the more cautious approach of asking for comments, which you have offered. Just a pity you couldn't be a bit more gracious about it. In any case, the amount of money spent or available does not always indicate an excellent performance for a web site. I have noted that my bank's online facility, which after all must be regarded as having adequate access to funds, seems to degrade to quite unacceptable standards and to be frequently off-line. Also, I note that at an earlier version of Whirlpool used an Access database,, which had to be replaced with MySQL and I think that the system iS cfm on Windows. Perhaps if originallly written on open source technologies then it may have been cheaper and more efficient to run? So while I am prepared to believe that the whole thing is a great achievment, I wonder to what extent the statements about efficincy are factual or relate to any empirical evidence which actually, I highly doubt. --Wm 06:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Website maintained by Internode

This seems like unfounded crap to me. Whirlpool's FAQ states that it gets hosting from some outfit called WebCentral, and that most of the costs are paid by Simon Wright. If you have some shred of evidence to back up your claim, let's see it.

Silenceisfoo 04:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GUWPCT

Maybe a Section Dealing with 'GUWPCT' Theorys should be added - (ie. Dispelling them)

I WANNA BE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!

• Perhaps you should write one! Bear in mind that the GUWPCT page was deleted for being non-notable. This page may require a sub-section on Whirlpool culture and lingo... the GUWPCT could be part of that. - Captainmax 22:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe it should be re-deleted for being non-notable. This "GUWPCT" means precisely zero to anyone outside of the forum culture of Whirlpool. Wikipedia isn't a place for people to name-check, perpetrate in-jokes or somehow say something that they feel may get moderated on in the forum in question. Peter1968 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed it. It simply isn't material that is notable outside of people familiar with Whirlpool's forum culture. Peter1968 13:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not notable within forum culture either, a throw away line stretched into a 2..3? year unfunny joke.

Who's Who...irrelevence?

Just curious to know why the moderators of this site are listed, and I'm having dramas reconciling that with the concept of "encyclopedia". The proprietor, sure, but a bunch of anonymous individuals known mainly by handles rather than real names? To me, that has no place in an encyclopedia. In fact, the whole article comes across as a plug, but that's a tale for another day. Peter1968 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to add the exact same comment when I noticed yours. I agree, why do the moderators names need to be listed? --210.15.226.146 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the above comments. --AussieLegend 10:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and gotten rid of it. The moderator info is totally non-notable information, especially from the world-wide encyclopedic point-of-view that Wikipedia presents. In addition, no other forum website entry I can find (e.g Slashdot ) lists moderator names, but rather moderation policies, which is possibly more relevant. Peter1968 10:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Moderating

Does the moderating information (esp. comparison) bit need to be in there? A lot of other stuff in that section isn't NPOV also -- bdude Talk 11:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I wrote further up somewhere, this entire article comes across as a plug, or a hagiography written by a fanboi. If you think changes need to made, then be bold and make them. Peter1968 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh the temptation for petty vandalism is strong, one is tempted to remove that section and just leave a "The moderators are often accused for being heavy handed" <- Whim a mod. "Open" moderation at its finest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.15.143 (talk • contribs)

I think moderation, or more specifically heavy-handed, unnecessary, inconsistent and over-moderation, is a notable aspect of Whirlpool since so many people seem to complain about it. It's not hard to find examples. For example,

[1] - post deleted as off-topic but the contents of the post are included 3 posts further down the page.

[2] - factual post responding to OP's question deleted as trolling

Examples such as these could be used to make the section NPOV but, as I see it, they are "original research" and therefore not eligible to be used to support the comments made in the moderating section. --AussieLegend 06:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I'm sure you (and everyone else) knows, Wikipedia isn't the place to grind axes about any particular subject. That's how commenting on Whirlpool's apparent board nazism would come across. Peter1968 12:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The overmoderation of Whirlpool is imho a notable feature of it, people get particularly frustrated on this board above a lot of other comparable ones. The problem is that the sentiment isn't well documented (particularly considering complaints about it on the board itself are modded out). I don't think we have the ability to include information about it in the article. That said, if it can't be documented in the article because it's not able to be sourced, the mitigation in the article as it stands ("apparent over-moderation") can't be included either imo. I'm removing it. •Elomis• 01:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It'd be a hard thing to quantify and include in an encyclopedia article. I personally agree WP is moderated with an iron fist. It's one of the reasons why I don't like posting there. Anything resembling a lively and controversial argument is modded out. What we're left with is a sterilised forum devoid of any contention, controversy or dialectic. I'd suggest that WP's forum culture is dictated to by a moral and ethical shrinking violet(s) too lawsuit-shy to allow stands to be taken except on anything other how bad an ISP sucks. Peter1968 (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's getting a bit off-topic here, but out of rabid curiosity I looked to see what Peter1968 had posted about on Whirlpool. In every case they were in off-topic forums (where we do practice a stronger hand of moderation than normal), and in most cases, in controversial or inflammatory threads. On the other hand, more than a handful of these removed posts were incorrectly targeted for removal, in my opinion. It's difficult enough to get the balance between openness and civility, let alone achieve a consistent set of policies when applied by thirty or more human individuals. --Simon Wright (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that me and the guy who posts on WP as "Peter1968" are the same person? Answer: you don't. Either way, don't bring personal information like that here into Wikipedia. Peter1968 (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I know that you're the same Peter1968? Answer: I don't. For that matter, I don't even know if you're the same Peter1968 as the one who posted here back in August. This is the wild internet; it's not necessarily a precision mechanism. I made a simple leap of logic available to anyone with rudimentary knowledge of google search criteria. We're able to navigate everyday life using reasonable assumptions; I made one here, and remain satisfied in its reasonableness.

I understand the tone of your response, however you've shown interest in supplying your own personal opinion within these talk pages, so I do think it's both appropriate and relevant that this opinion can undergo further consideration. Given that I based my response entirely on information that is (or was) fully available for public scrutiny, I don't feel the charge you have laid to have sufficient merit. I respect your right to disagree, however. --Simon Wright (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, the consensus is that it's overmoderated to a profound point, but that's consensus. Twenty random people I ask who use or have used the site will agree that it's actually intimidating how likely you are to be told to stfu if you post anything outside of "I really like my billion router", but consensus isn't citation or verifiable (unless each reader asks my friends, or their own, even then it'd need to be published as a phenomenon). I deleted the "apparent" moderation bit because I don't think the site has the right to defend itself against claims of nazism that aren't allowed to be expanded on the wikipedia. It smelled a bit to me like "You're not allowed to accuse the site of being hamfisted but I'm allowed to write about why we might appear hamfisted and how that's not the case". The defense is as inadmissible as the accusation, for the same reasons. •Elomis• 06:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Whirlpool Screenshot.jpg

Image:Whirlpool Screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Teal screen death.png

Image:Teal screen death.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Guys, bone up on WP:CITE and WP:V before adding "references" to this article. A self-referencing citation (i.e pointing to a Whirlpool page to back up something on the Whirlpool article) isn't good enough. I'm not trying to be a dick about any of this, but it's the way things work around here. The article needs reliable and verifiable third party sources. End of story. Peter1968 (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to help improve the Whirlpool entry by adding third party sources. However, what is the situation when there is no third party source for certain information? No credible third party (that I can find) has commented on the unique facets of our moderation and policies, but they're still true and relevant. Could you perhaps assist me (and others) by providing an example of what might plausibly need a third party reference where one could be expected to exist? --Simon Wright (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have skimmed through WP:CITE (a how-to guide, less useful) and thoroughly read WP:V (which is well written and very useful). From what I can tell, most of the direct references which the article currently has handily satisfy the 7 criteria laid down in the section Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Would this be a reasonable conclusion to draw? --Simon Wright (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think third party sources are relevant when deciding the notability of a subject, but surely there is nothing wrong with the source itself being used as a reference? I see nothing wrong with, for example, a Wikipedia article about an organisation saying it was founded in 1905, and then referencing to the "about us" page on that organisations website which states when it was founded and by whom. Straight from the horses mouth. -- Chuq (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Where Whirlpool was hosted

Recent edits suggest that Whirlpool was first hosted by Cyberhost. This is incorrect. Whirlpool was first hosted by Telstra in the free web space provided to BigPond Cable subscribers. It then moved to a Macintosh computer hosted on my residential BigPond Cable connection. Between mid 2000 and mid 2001 it was hosted by Cyberhost until they were acquired by OzHosting. Between mid 2001 and late 2008 it was hosted by WebCentral. It's currently hosted by Bulletproof Networks as stated in the article. --Simon Wright (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

2010 ddos attack

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/218190,whirlpool-suffers-ddos-attack.aspx http://www.itnews.com.au/News/218335,whirlpool-ddos-attacks-to-be-reported-to-police.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.220.188 (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexa Rank

The comments say the alexa rank is automatically updated monthly with a bot. This has not happened in a year based on the dates shown. Any chance of bringing the autoupdate back? 124.171.114.33 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whirlpool (website). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524191214/http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=104170&p=2 to http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=104170&p=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"deleted material may simply disappear from view."

Mote that, contrary to the description in this article, "deleted material may simply disappear from view", (in 2017).

I had a question about sourcing joinery supplies deleted/disappeared because of a complaint/moderation. It fell foul of the restrictions on discussing electrical trade work. As such it wasn't archived/closed: it was totally disappeared.

I haven't changed the text because I don't want to get into an argument with whatever ill-informed editor wrote the original text: I don't even have a third-party reference to support an edit war. Just talk point that the article if factually incorrect in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.212.199 (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)